The Faculty Lounge

Of Book Challenges and Firings

Sorry for all of you who have apparently had enough of blogging about Sarah Palin. But two news stories today made me think about Palin. First, this week is Banned Book Week (see my earlier post). Second, just yesterday an internal Justice Department investigation concluded that political pressure drove the firings of several US Attorneys, but that the investigation was thwarted by the refusal of key White House players in the scandal to testify (US Attorney Nora Dennehy has been appointed to continue the investigation). Banned books and political firings: what does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

Some time ago, ABC news did a report about Sarah Palin's firing of a librarian who publicly disagreed with her about removing certain books from the Wasilla Library.  According to the report, Palin, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, asked the librarian during a council meeting about removing certain books from the library. At the time, Palin was the member of a church that had been vocal in its challenges to the availability of certain books, including (not kidding) Go Ask Alice, a cautionary tale about teenage drug use published in 1971. The librarian responded that she would not remove any books from the library. Shortly after the meeting, Palin fired the librarian.

So, why should we care about a fired librarian? Because this story (and to some extent, Troopergate) make for its own cautionary tale. And, folks, we've been there before.  I worry about having yet more people in the White House who believe it is good decision-making to fire thoughtful and smart people who disagree with them.  Or, who are so unshakeable in their beliefs that they cannot abide different viewpoints. 

So, PUMAs, come on. Is Palin really worth your vote? Ok, you're angry. So, take a kick-boxing class (or ten). Don't buy this sorry (and scary) consolation prize.   

Said the night wind to the little lamb . . .

Much has been written about the disaster that is Sarah Palin.  (I tried to be nice, I truly did, but there really is no other word.)  I don't have to rehash what has been stated clearly and repeatedly from those in the center and the right.   But for me, the question isn't why did he pick her or is she qualified or why is she still on the ticket.  To me, after Sarah Palin's less than stellar performances, the question is WHY IS THIS ELECTION EVEN CLOSE? 

I wonder, in all seriousness, what is it that is keeping McCain as close as he is?  Granted, Obama is ahead, but not by much.   I thought about racism, but I'm thinking that is the easy and obvious answer.  I'm not saying race isn't a factor, but I think there is something more insidious at work.

As the night wind asked the little lamb, I'd like to ask McCain supporters, "Do you see what I see?"  I know the answer is "no," but I am intrigued by the reasons why.  I think that over the past few generations, Americans have simply redefined what it means to be a leader.  At one point, our leaders were expected to be "great men"  - to be better than the average citizen.  However, at some point (my guess is after the disappointment of Watergate) we  went from admiring our leaders and according them a lofty status to relegating them to the status of normal human beings.  This would not be bad in the abstract as politicians are merely flawed people and do not have any superpowers.  (Though it would be cool if they did!)   But in reality, we don't expect our leaders to be normal - we expect them to be like us.  That is the problem.  Who cares if Sarah Palin doesn't know anything about foreign policy?  Not some voters, who will merely say, "Neither do I."  As I have reflected and looked in many comment boards, people are willing to defend Sarah Palin to the death despite all evidence to the contrary.  And why not?  If someone attacked you, wouldn't you respond? 

On a certain level, one can understand the desire to vote for a reflection of oneself.  However, there is a fine line between desiring relatability to normal concerns and a narcissistic demand that only a candidate that is just like you in all ways deserves your vote.  Narcissism makes everything personal and clouds our ability to judge candidates on the merits of their positions.  Therefore, even the most painfully true attacks on someone like Sarah Palin are greeted with an ears-in-fingers "La La La La!  I'm not listening!"  response because to allow her to be attacked is to allow yourself to be attacked, as she is the political representation of you.  This is quite dangerous to the continance of our democracy.  How can we have a civilized debate when personalities are more important than facts?

Note:  In addition to narcissism, I also believe partisanship is playing a huge role.  More on that in the next post. . . .

One more Note:  I know I can't be the only person to have thought this in recent days, so I'll try to see what those more versed in this area have to say.

UPDATE:  More support for the thesis here.  sbpoet, a blogger on the OpenSalon network, writes that conservatives are defending Palin's inability to identify even a single newspaper she's read on the basis that she is a "real person" which makes her "a better candidate than a professor."   Better how, I wonder?  And better to whom?

This Week is Banned Books Week

The last week in September is the week the American Library Association has set aside to raise awareness about book censorship.  On the positive side, when the ALA first designated Banned Books week, in 1982, hundreds of books were being removed from library shelves in any given year. Last year, the number was only 40, according to Judith F. Krug, director of ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom.  In commemoration of Banned Books Week, many libraries across America are reading from once (and current) banned books. If you want to learn more, including interesting information like banned book events near you (go to a reading!) and the frequency of challenges to books written by authors of color, check out the ALA's banned books site here.

Instead of a link, I thought it important enough to put the most frequently challenged books of 2007 right in this post. Notice a pattern? I did (more on that later). If you want to see other lists, include the most challenged books of the 21st Century, go to the ALA site, which is very informative:

Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2007

1. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell. Picture book. (this book is about two male penguins who raise a baby penguin from a hetero penguin couple). Reasons: anti-ethnic, sexism, homosexuality, anti-family, religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group.

2. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier. Youth novel. Reasons: sexually explicit, offensive language, violence.

3. Olive's Ocean, by Kevin Henkes. Youth novel. Reasons: sexually explicit and offensive language.

4. The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman. Youth novel. Reason: Religious viewpoint.

5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain. Novel. Reason: racism.

6. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker. Novel. Reasons: homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language.

7. TTYL, by Lauren Myracle. Youth novel. Reasons: sexually explicit, offensive language, unsuited to age group.

8. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou. Novel. Reason: sexually explicit.

9. It's Perfectly Normal, by Robie H. Harris. Youth nonfiction. Reasons: sex education, sexually explicit.

10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky. Novel. Reasons: homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, unsuited to age group.

Watching My Past Dissolve

The world is turning topsy turvy these days.  The biggest banks evaporate overnight.  The market plunges - did anyone notice that NASDAQ dropped over 9% today?  And a conservative Republican President is desperately attempting to sell a $700 billion market bailout to a stunned electorate.  For people losing their jobs, this is horrendous news.  Just imagine what it's like in Charlotte.  (Think of depending on US Airways as a pillar of your local economy!)  The nation is in a state of shock.

But we all experience things most intensely when they're personal. Today two important bits of my past evaporated.  First, the place I was born 46 years ago: Michael Reese Hospital on the South Side of Chicago.  It was an independent facility, not the University of Chicago or Northwestern, but as far as I understood as a child, a fine place to to arrive on earth.  I don't know if everyone is intensely conscious of their "home hospital", but I am.  In a small way, it's part of how I understand and define myself.  Well, continuity no more.  Today, 127 year old Michael Reese declared bankruptcy.

Twenty two years later, fresh out of college, I got a job as a paralegal at Heller, Ehrman, White and McAullife.  I started by doing document review as a temp (Certified FlexStaff, if memory serves).  A few months later, I became one of two legal assistants working the Jessie Short Native American land trust litigation.  Not only was the substance of my work compelling; I really liked the firm's community.  It was a central space in my life during those post-college, pre-law school years.   And today, Heller, Ehrman dissolved itself.

At this point in my life, these institutions are largely symbolic.  I don't have friends at Heller.  And I haven't been to the Michael Reese campus since 1975.  But I always knew they were there.  As I moved through my life, they were sturdy reminders of where I'd been and who I was today.  I suppose I remain the same, notwithstanding their departure.  It just doesn't quite feel that way. 

Economist Creates A Global Electoral College

I always enjoy new ways to come together and vote and/or bet on the Presidential election.  Now the Economist, surely the world's best-written newsweekly, has gotten into this sordid business.  They've created a Global Electoral College.  Everyone votes for their candidate on line...but they identify their nationality first.  Then the Economist, treating each country as if it were a state, and allocating votes to countries based on their overall portion of the world's population, will determine who'd win this race if everyone could vote.  In this race, I'm betting on Obama!

With Apologies In Advance

ok, I told myself to lay off of Sarah Palin for a while and give you, dear readers, a break.   

But there's just soooo much to work with.  Like this:

">

Good Looord.  Someone save us!!!

The Perfect Weekend?

Ok.  I'm just back from Boston, where I attended a conference in honor of Morton Horwitz.  I wrote a little bit about my thoughts about Horwitz' work recently.  It was great--lots and lots of Horwitz' colleagues and friends talking about him and his work and a lot of talk about his contributions to legal history--helping us understand the role of economy and ideology in legal development and his recent work on the Warren Court, too.  The schmoozing about legal history, as well as seeing many of my dearest and oldest friends, as well as some people I know through the blogosphere, would have been enough to make the perfect weekend.  Then, after I got back to my hotel yesterday evening, what did I find on televsion?  Casablanca, followed by ... the Crimson Tide's stunning victory over UGA.  Ah, you can take the boy out of Tuscaloosa but you can't take Tuscaloosa out of the boy.  We're now number 2 in AP poll--behind only Oklahoma!  What a fantastic set of events.

Palin Meets the Media . . . Sort of

So Americans have been calling on McCain to show us why Sarah Palin's qualified to be VP.  Here's what we got today as she braved reporters in Manhattan after a visit to ground zero - and no, there's nothing after the jump - there is no  jump - this is it - the whole thing:

PALIN: Every American student needs to come through this area so that, especially this younger generation of Americans is, to be in a position of never forgetting what happened here and never repeating, never allowing a repeat of what happened here. I wish every American would come through here. I wish every world leader would come through here, and understand what it is that took place here and more importantly how America came together and united to commit to never allowing this to happen again. And just to hear and from and see these good New Yorkers who are rebuilding not just this are but helping to rebuild America has been very, very inspiring and encouraging. These are the good Americans who are committed to peace and security and its been an absolute honor getting to meet these folks today.

CNN: On the topic of never letting this happen again, do you agree with the way the Bush administration has handled the war on terrorism, is there anything you would do differently?

A: I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them. We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.

POLITICO: Do you think our presence in Iraq and afghan and our continued presence there is inflaming islamic extremists?

A: I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction. terrible destruction on that day. but since September 11, Americans uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.

POLITICO: Do you support the reelection bids of embattled Alaska Republicans, Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens?

A: Ted Stevens trial started a couple days ago. We’ll see where that goes.

POLITICO: Are you gong to vote for them?

[no answer.]

JERSEY JOURNAL: What do you think of bailout package before congress?

A: I don't support that until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson's proposals.

McCain - your insult to the American people is duly noted. 

-Kathleen A. Bergin

Winona Minnesota Steps Up, Sort Of

Thanks to Euguene Volokh, we now learn that the Minnesota teen arrested on misdemeanor counts of flag desecration will not be prosecuted.  Good news, to a point.  The conduct may be constitutionally protected, but one thing is for sure (at least in the view of the police chief): it won't be tolerated. 

[Police Chief] Pomeroy said his department referred the teen to the county attorney's office because something had to be done about the behavior, but it's ultimately up to the attorneys to prosecute.

I'll stick by my prior comments:

The Supreme Court can say whatever it wants.  Local officials know better.

Images: Breathtaking view of Winona County; the Winona County Courthouse

Maybe its a FEMA communications meltdown . . .

Local officials allowed Galveston residents to return to the island today to pick up the pieces of what's left.  Its only supposed to reach 85 degrees, not bad by Texas standards, but still pretty hot if you're gutting a house.

But apparently not hot enough for FEMA to give a shit.  In Galveston alone, 75% of homes and businesses are not fit for habitation, 70% of whats left is still without power, and the remaining 30% who do have power can't turn it on yet per the instruction of city inspectors.  So what does FEMA do: DUMP THE ICE AT THE AIRPORT.  ON THE RUNWAY!!!  No. Kidding.

Having too much ice apparently shows they were prepared.  But now they can't find any vendors to take it and the alternatives for storage are just too expensive.  Like parking the truck on the streetcorner and handing out bags to the shell shocked residents of a federally declared disaster area. 

Hey FEMA, if you can't find any takers in Galveston bring the ice back here to Houston.  Where you apparently sent one driver, but then told him to leave?  Thousands of us here are still without power and aren't scheduled to get it until sometime next week.  And damn, its hot!  We'll take the ice.  Meet you at the Kroger on Ella & 43rd.  Five minutes and the whole truckload will be gone!!

Hey, I could even stick it in a cooler and bring it to Galveston.

-Kathleen A. Bergin

She can see Russia, she just can't talk to the press about Russia

I'm no fan of the anchor turned commentator, but am happy to see someone calling out the McCain camp for refusing to let the potential VP, one day maybe President, be seen talking to a foreign leader about anything other than baby names. 

Sarah Palin's a woman.  Sarah Palin has a baby.  We get it.  Now show us why in the world she sould be the VP.

">

-Kathleen A. Bergin

The World's Largest Hedge Fund: No Experience Required

My colleague, Karl Okamoto, has an op-ed today in the Inquirer, pointing out that the Paulson bailout proposal would effectively create the world's largest hedge fund.  And he figures that Hank isn't going to manage the $700 million dollar fund himself: he'll want to hire someone.

Given that we are telling these managers that we want them to leave money on the table, under what circumstances do they agree to come to work? The answer will be a fixed fee. A fee of 2 percent of the assets under management is a typical solution. That's $14 billion a year to manage Secretary Paulson's new hedge fund.

But there's a rub:

Everyone understands that a buy-and-hold strategy can make money provided that you buy low and sell higher. Since the purpose of this new fund is to allow banks to unload inflated securities in order to avoid significant further write-downs, Secretary Paulson is looking to launch his new hedge fund by buying in at prices that are higher than the prevailing market price.

Hedge funds are usually designed to make money.  This money manager will be brought in to lose it!  As soon as the fund is approved by Congress, I'm going to submit my resume.  It's hard to dump $700 billion dollars, but for a few billion bucks...I'm willing to try.

The Bailout in Easy to Understand Terms . . .

If you are confused by the bailout, here's Rachel Maddow to explain it in commonsense terms.  It would be even funnier if it wasn't so accurate. 

Also, as a professor of Constitutional Law, I must say that Paulson's request to spend the money with no oversight from Congress or the Courts is a separation of powers issue nonpareil.  I'll be watching that issue very closely as the bailout plan is debated in Congress.

UPDATE:  In his latest piece for Slate.com, Dean Rod Smolla of Washington and Lee University asks: "Is Paulson's Bailout Plan Unconstitutional?"  The article notes that while Congress has passed laws that require little or no oversight, such laws are "relatively rare," and that the bailout bill, as written, "is in powerful tension with our system of checks and balances and its constitutionality could be in grave doubt." 

I'll keep watching  . . . .

Sketches And Memories: An Insider's Account Of Courtroom Chicago

Here's an interesting new book for trial and courtroom junkies.  Rule 53: Capturing Hippies, Spies, Politicians and Murderers in an American Courtroom is the work of Andy Austin, a sketch artist from Chicago.  Starting with the Chicago Seven trial (or, more accurately, with the Chicago Eight), Austin captured what cameras could not: courtroom excitement in the Second City. 

This volume includes a few dozen beautiful drawings from her past -and they reminded reminded me of what a great crime town Chicago really is.  The pols: Otto Kerner and Ed Hanrahan (but alas, no Governor Dan Walker...on whose behalf I delivered a speech to Robert A. Black Elementary School in 1972...prior to his election and conviction.)  The freaks: John Wayne Gacy.  And of course the gangs: from the mob to El Rukn. 

Austin also does a nice job as a memoir author.  In a sense she unearths material from her cutting room floor.  I imagine that a sketch artist surveys the courtroom scene, mining only a few critical details in her image. Here, Austin shares all the other details that didn't fit in the pictures.   And she shares some sarcasm to boot.  Describing the trial of a corrupt legislator, she writes: the defense put on the usual selection of character witnesses: a cripple, a doer of good deeds in the slums, a priest, a couple of nuns.  A nice middle-aged black lady said..."My opinion is he's a good man, he's an honest person, and I just love him."

Looking at this material, I was reminded of another great sketch artist who covered the Chicago Seven trial: Franklin McMahon.  For many years, these individuals were our only window to the courthouse - the only way in which the Sixth Amendment public trial right had teeth, in a visual sense.   Times have changed, of course (notwithstanding Justice Souter's assertion that cameras will roll into the High Court over his dead body.) So what has technology and courtroom access done for us?  Cameras capture more information, quantitatively. And they produce more salable entertainment.  But there is special value in an artist's close reading of a tense scene and her rendition - in picture or memoir - of the things that mattered. 

Image: Austin's sketch of John Wayne Gacy.

The Punishment of Solitary Confinement

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article entitled Two Decades in Solitary,  detailing the life of Willie Bosket, who was sentenced to 25 years to life after stabbing a prison guard. Bosket-- who was the impetus, 30 years ago, for New York's law permitting juveniles to be tried as adults (his first crime, at age 15, was killing two people, but he only served five years)--has spent the last 20 years in solitary confinement. 

As the Times notes:

He is one of New York’s most isolated prisoners, spending 23 hours a day for the past two decades in a 9-by-6-foot cell. The only trimmings are a cot and a sink-toilet combination. His visitors — few as they are — must wedge into a nook outside his cell and speak to him through a 1-by-3-foot window of foggy plexiglass and iron bars.

Bosket's repeated attempts to get the terms of his confinement lifted have so far proved unavailing.  But his case highlights the discussion now happening among both scholars and policy-makers:  whether the quality of punishment means as much as the quantity of punishment.  (Adam Kolber has recently written some excellent papers on this, found here.)  Clearly, permanent solitary confinement punishes in a way that even LWOP does not;  I'm glad the issue is getting some media and academic attention.

Police Force Alvin Ailey Dancer to Dance

From AP news

A performer with the Alvin Ailey dance company was forced to perform dance steps for Israeli police to prove his identity, according to published reports in the international media.

Abdur-Rahim Jackson is traveling with the Alvin Ailey troupe in Israel, which arrived in Israel on Sunday, but he was singled out from other members of the group because of his Muslim name.

When Jackson identified himself as a member of the dance group, security officials at Ben-Gurion International Airport ordered him to dance to prove his talent.

UPDATE:  I did not realize that my fellow blogger, Donald Tibbs, has already posted on this topic earlier this month, here.

A Tale of Two Visions

I am so excited to be at The Faculty Lounge!  I hope you'll enjoy my first post. 

Last Saturday, I attended a rally for Barack Obama here in Jacksonville.  While Jacksonville has traditionally been a Republican stronghold - see  here and here - Obama managed to draw a crowd of over 20,000 people, according to official media reports.  This figure, of course, does not count the number of people the police turned away after closing the park. 

As I stood in the rally with my toddler in tow, I looked at the crowd around me.  For all of the talk of McCain having clear advantages over certain groups - namely seniors, white  men, and white women - at the rally, I saw white senior citizens of both genders, and not just a few.  I also saw young people of all descriptions.  I saw people who were wheelchair bound and people using devices to assist them with visual impairments.  This is going to sound very trite, but the sight of people of all different races and colors and genders and creeds and abilities coming together was inspiring.  I left the rally thinking, "This is what America is like at its very best."   

But as often happens in life, and particularly in politics, this optimism was fleeting.  This time, the rain on my parade came in the form of a poll which stated that while John McCain has the support of 85% of Republicans, only 70 percent of White Democrats are backing Obama.  Even more disturbing, the poll data indicates that many negative attitudes toward African Americans that we would have hoped were extinct are alive and well.

All of this got me thinking - which experience was real?  The one at the rally? The one the polls suggest?  I know that I should believe half of what I see, and none of what I hear, but I'd like to think that I can believe my eyes and that the polls are wrong.

Or maybe both are right.  There seem to be two Americas - the America we are and the America we want to be.  If I may paraphrase those awful diet slogans -  inside of our country with its imperfections and -isms and -phobias and intolerance and other problems - is a tolerant, happy, hopeful country just waiting to break free.  Will we be able to do it?  I don't know.

I wonder if Jenny Craig is ready for this project . . .    

Fighting for His Life: A Georgia Man Makes Final Plea for Death Penalty Commutation

Attorneys for death row inmate have made a final request for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute the death sentence of Troy Davis. Davis is scheduled to be executed today, September 23, 2008, at 7pm. Last year, the board granted Davis a temporary reprieve less than 24 hours before his scheduled execution, when serious questions were raised about his case.

Davis’ case, like many others its predecessor, too, implicates the fairness and objectivity of our criminal justice system, particularly in relation to sentencing black defendants for murdering white victims. But, beyond the black/white paradigm, Davis’ fight for justice is worsened because his victim was an off-duty police officer – a fact that produces certain legal anxieties in relation to issues surrounding a fair police investigation of the case.

Does deterrence work?

I've always had my doubts, quite honestly.  And now adding to my disquiet is a new paper by David Lee and Justin McCrary, called Crime, Punishment & Myopia, which takes a law & econ look at deterrence:

Economic theory predicts that increasing the severity of punishments will deter criminal behavior by raising the expected price of committing crime. This implicit price can be substantially raised by making prison sentences longer, but only if offenders’ discount rates are relatively low. We use a large sample of felony arrests to measure the deterrence effect of criminal sanctions. We exploit the fact that young offenders are legally treated as adults—and face longer lengths of incarceration—the day they turn 18. Sufficiently patient individuals should therefore significantly lower their offending rates immediately upon turning 18. The small behavioral responses that we estimate suggest that potential offenders are extremely impatient, myopic, or both.

Love the dry humor in that last line of the abstract!  Paper located here (hat tip Legal Scholarship Blog).

Student Evaluations of Teaching: Reliable?

The Sunday NY Times had an interesting article that included summaries of various studies about how students evaluate teaching. I think my favorite is the study where a charming, witty and credentialed "professor" (they call him Dr. Myron Fox, but he is really an actor) talks nonsense to people for an hour, and is rated highlyby other professors and graduate students, many of whom felt they really learned something! Perhaps more useful (but less fun) are the studies that show that giving students chocolate (or all A grades) before the evaluations results in higher scores (are we really surprised?). The chocolate study is called "The Fudging the Numbers," proving that social scientists have a sense of humor, albeit a weakish one.

The article is interesting reading for anyone at a school where student evaluations are the primary resource for evaluating teaching. You can read it here, I believe without a subscription.

I was sorry not to see Debbie Merritt's article on Bias, the Brain and Student Evaluations given a mention -- if you  haven't seen this article, it is a must read.  Here, at SSRN.

It was especially relevant to the article's thesis that teachers of more controversial courses (like those about race and gender issues) tend to have a cadre of very negative students who are hostile to the message of the course and cream them on evaluations.  I know this happens, but I truly don't understand it.  These students chose to take the course! One of the courses in the Times article was The History of Minstrelsy at Wesleyan (even Wesleyan doesn't require it, so it is an elective). Why would you take a course like this if you didn't want to learn about the material? To be fair, one of the evaluations complained that the professor was late to class because of her yoga class (not making this up), so some of the hostility might have been well-earned. But I can imagine Dr. Myron Fox getting a pass for similar behavior (perhaps he was late because of a vigorous game of squash).

In any event, all of these studies should give us real pause about the utility of student evaluations. I think it is very, very important to give students a voice, but I think the way the evaluation is structured -- and how the questions are asked -- is so critical, and I'm not sure we've found the right formula yet. And, I tend to agree with some of the commentators in the Times article that overuse of evaluation numbers to assess teaching is lazy and unproductive (you are going to weed out good teachers). 

But, hey, now that we all know about the "Fudge Factor" (damn my secret is out), we'll all be on the upswing...